In the minutes before Saunders was shot dead did any officer mention on the police radio channel "Hang on, is he asking to be shot?" or "Watch out, he may just be enticing us," he asked.

"No, not specifically," replied Bennett, tactical firearms adviser during the police operation. "But it was a theme throughout the evening."

The full strength of the firepower employed by the Metropolitan police emerged as Bennett told Westminster coroner's court he had sought to "minimise overt police action" on the day.

Fifteen armed police were positioned in properties at the back of the Markham Square property, 21 at the front, four in the operations control room at a nearby bank, nine "at entry", and 10 other on-call specialist firearms users were in the area.

"If in this particular situation you could avoid the area bristling with firearms officers, is that something you would try to do if it could safely be done?" asked Nicholas Hilliard QC , counsel for the inquest.

Bennett replied: "I certainly wouldn't have any more firearms officers there than I thought necessary".

Saunders, a former Territorial Army soldier who was very drunk, died at 9.32pm on 6 May 2008 as seven firearms officers shot at him believing he was aiming his shotgun at them.

Just minutes before, powerful lights, "enough to light up half a football pitch" had been shone on his flat, prompted by requests from firearms officers they could not see into his premises.

"Was this to provoke a reaction from Mr Saunders?" asked Patrick Gibbs QC, for Saunders' widow Elizabeth. Referring to a taped conversation between police negotiators at the time, he said they had been heard saying Saunders was "gonna get a load of lights on the back in a moment". The negotiators had continued it would "hopefully provoke a reaction".

"Just try to picture it from Mr Saunders' point of view," said Gibbs. "The helicopter has come down low. He would have been almost deafened. And then the lights go in and are turned on and all the officers with their guns are all still up there pointing at him . Do you think this was likely to calm the situation down?"

Bennett replied: "I felt sure it was tactically necessary to do that".

Marksmen had already been shining "Sure Fire" torches at the premises and he did not think the lights contributed to a "massive change in environment".

"You said you wanted to try to minimise overt action so as to avoid reaction and over re-action from Mr Saunders," said Gibbs. "Is it your evidence that what happened after 21.09 [when Saunders blew his window out] was from the containment officers' point of view a minimising of overt action? Or do you think rather it increased the overt action? "

Bennett replied: "It continued a vein. I don't think it minimised or increased it". He added: "This was the least intrusive use as far as firearms were concerned which could have been adopted". Neither of the "less lethal" options Tasers or baton rounds which fired rubber bullets, were appropriate for the situation.

Asked why he had not considered the option of allowing Saunders' wife to knock at the door and try to speak to her husband, he said he was responsible for her safety.

"We may have been delivering a hostage, I know it sounds painful to say that, but delivering a potential hostage into a situation where we didn't already have one,' he said.

Bennett's superior, Superintendent Michael Wise, Silver Commander responsible for tactical decisions on the day, admitted he was not aware the lights were being turned on and did not know that Saunders had warned negotiators he was going to blow his kitchen window out.

He was also unaware that Saunders had himself dialled 999 twice when he lost mobile phone contact with negotiators, that he had held up a note saying "kill myself" or that he had appeared to put the muzzle of his shotgun in his mouth.

He was asked by Gibbs: Did you get the impression at any point that night you were getting sidelined?"

He replied: "No sir" and added: "There is nothing that came to light at the time or during the rigorous IPCC investigation that would have altered the decisions I made at the time."

Denying police did anything to "provoke a reaction" or make a "show of force", he said any such move would be "completely opposite" to his aims.

"We were trying to achieve a peaceful resolution to extremely demanding and difficult circumstances when, at that time, shots had been fired again at my officers".